Standing Committee D

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Extradition Bill

Anne Begg: I welcome hon. Members to the Committee on this chilly morning. Obviously, we are used to this sort of temperature in my part of the world. One of my Scottish colleagues has already asked whether it is in order for him to remove his jacket. I am not sure what sort of temperature he is used to, but it is perfectly acceptable for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets if they so wish. This is the first Standing Committee that I have chaired, and I am very pleased to be here. The Committee will be in my tender care for the rest of the day.Clause 1 Extradition to category 1 territories

Clause 1 - Extradition to category 1 territories

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Thank you, Miss Begg. I understand that, on reflection with your co-Chairman, Mr. O'Hara, you agreed to allow a brief clause stand part debate. I am grateful for that decision and welcome you to the Chair.
 I shall not repeat what I said at length in moving the Opposition's initial group of amendments. It was particularly helpful that Mr. O'Hara said that clause 1 showed how front-loaded the Bill was, and the Minister was kind enough to confirm that. We all take the view that much of the meat is at the beginning of the Bill. However, this clause is short. Its significance lies more in the issues that have been left out. I am referring to the fact that British citizens will no longer have the protection of such historic rights as habeas corpus, that the European arrest warrant may be used to take away historic civil liberties of citizens of this country, and to all the other issues that I raised under the initial amendments. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made very important points on Second Reading, to which I referred briefly on Tuesday, and he will wish to address the Committee in this debate. I confirm that the Opposition believe that it would have been much better had the Government been honest enough to list at the beginning of the Bill all 32 categories in the framework decision. That is perhaps the biggest gap in clause 1. If the Government were being honest, they would have made it clear that the provision was really an attempt to introduce the European concept of corpus juris into United Kingdom law by the back door. 
 A range of organisations, from those traditionally regarded as on the left of politics, such as Liberty and Justice, right through to those on the right of politics, such as the Freedom Association and the Democracy 
 Movement, have also argued that, if the Government were being honest, they should have set out at the beginning of the Bill the 32 vague categories in the framework decision. The fact that they are not listed there is one of the chief things wrong with the clause. That is the mischief in it. 
 The Opposition have said repeatedly that if part 1 of the Bill were restricted to dealing with terrorism, these very draconian measures would have been acceptable, given the exceptional risk and threat of terrorist offences. However, it is not acceptable for this part to cover such vague crimes as xenophobia and computer-related crime. As I said, the Government should have made it clear at the outset that they were to take away the historic right of British citizens to habeas corpus and should have set out the 32 categories. I shall not detain the Committee further. I simply wanted to set out where the Opposition think the mischief lies.

Anne Begg: I was minded to allow a debate on clause 1 stand part, because some Members from the official Opposition were absent on Tuesday. However, I remind hon. Members that there are many other clauses to be debated and that this is a timetabled Bill, and I appeal to them to be brief.

John Maples: I apologise for not having been here yesterday, but I was a late addition to the Committee and could not come. I shall briefly restate some of the points that I made on Second Reading. Part 1 is fundamentally misconceived. It is our job as Members to protect, not to detract from, the long-won freedoms of citizens of this country.
 The Bill will have scandalous consequences. It is difficult to believe that a Government who pride themselves—as everyone can—on having an honourable record on human rights, individual freedoms and judicial protection for the individual in standing up to the powers of the state, could ever have entered into this European framework document and translated it into this legislation. That is not to say that we do not need to make changes to extradition law. I first made this point after the Prime Minister's statement immediately after 11 September regarding four terrorists who are still in this country. He blamed the legislation, the details of which we shall discuss later, but I believe that we can blame the courts and the Home Office for a large part of the delay at least. 
 I entirely agree that we need some changes to our extradition procedures. There are far too many appeals. There are two tracks: judicial review and extradition. I would have little problem with the reform if it were based on part 2, but I have problems with the residual powers to the Home Secretary under clause 193. The reforms proposed in part 2 are right. They are sensible and allow people the freedom to challenge extradition, but reduce the number of appeals, and will inevitably reduce the amount of time taken. 
 I have no problem with fast-tracking certain countries, as I have no problem with the judicial systems of many of our European partners. Not all of them, however, and certainly not all the candidate 
 countries that may come in, will become party to the framework decision and thus beneficiaries of the legislation. With regard to the offences listed in the framework document, the legislation is removing all the protections that have been built up for British citizens over hundreds of years. Not a single protection will be left standing. Dual criminality, prima facie cases, which have gone already, and the Home Secretary's powers are all at the heart of extradition law. 
 If the Government are using the European framework document as a way of dealing with the problem of extraditing terrorists, or those accused of terrorism, more quickly, that is an excuse, not a reason. In Britain, three people are in jail accused of the African embassy bombings in 1998. They are still in this country. It took more than two years to reach the divisional court and another year to reach the House of Lords. That was a year ago, and the Home Secretary has still not made his decision under the Act on those cases. If those three people had been extradited and could have been questioned, who knows whether the recent bombings in Mombassa or other acts by al-Qaeda terrorists or other groups of terrorists unassociated with al-Qaeda could have been prevented. 
 Extradition was sought—I do not remember whether it was to the United States or Kenya. It is a scandal that those people are still here. They are taking advantage of the protections that I want to keep, but are using them to delay extradition for four years. The courts have much to answer for. Those delays are utterly scandalous. The judges, the divisional court and the House of Lords should not have allowed procedures to delay the extradition of those people for so long, and the Home Secretary has much to answer for in not having ordered their extradition 12 months after the House of Lords dealt with their cases. 
 However, those are not the worst cases. The worst case by far is that of Rachid Ramda, an Algerian accused of the Paris metro bombings in 1995. He was arrested in November 1995, so he has been here for more than seven years. It took a year to reach the divisional court, and another two years to reach the House of Lords, at which point he dropped his appeal. It then took the Home Secretary 29 months—nearly two and a half years—to order his removal. We cannot blame the legislation for the courts and the Home Secretary each taking two and a half years. That demonstrates a manifest lack of urgency on the part of both those institutions. The Home Secretary ordered his removal, but the House of Lords found fault with that, and the Home Secretary has been asked to reconsider his decision. 
 That is a scandal. Who knows what Rachid Ramda might have done? If the accusations against him are correct, he is involved in the Algerian terrorist group, the GIA. It would appear that the people who have been arrested in connection with the discovery of ricin in London are also connected with that group. If he had been questioned by the French security authorities about the Paris metro bombings, who knows whether 
 that might have led them to links with other Algerian terrorist groups? It is not an adequate reason for bringing forward part 1 of the Bill to deal with terrorism. The appeal process could have been tightened up, and if the Lord Chancellor spent a bit of time kicking some of his fellow judges into acting with a greater sense of urgency and the Home Secretary had spent some of his time dealing with these important issues rather than letting them languish on his desk—for years, in one case—we would have made a great deal of progress with those cases and other terrorist outrages may have been prevented. 
 My main objection to the Bill is the list of offences in the European framework document, and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to its vagueness. What does computer-related crime mean? I suppose that it is intended to mean mass frauds committed over the internet, or the mass distribution of pornographic or illegal material or incitement to violence. Does computer-related crime also include a 16-year-old dopehead stealing someone's computer? That sounds like a computer-related crime to me. I am not surprised that the draftsman declined to incorporate the list into the Bill directly but chose to do so by reference. No draftsman of British legislation and no British lawyer would produce such an unbelievably vague document. It cries out for further and better particulars, to use a legal expression. It is too vague to be the basis of any criminal law procedure. If people are to be arrested, extradited and imprisoned for crimes, they are entitled to a more precise definition of what they are accused of. 
 I am worried that the proposal does not define criminal offences. That is the procedure for legislation in the European Union and in our partner countries, but that is not a reason for sacrificing the long-held traditions of our own legal system, which I would argue is superior to the legal systems of many of our European partners. If anything, they should draw on our legal system rather than we on theirs. I am especially concerned that the dual criminality rule is to be dropped. That is the fundamental point about the list in the framework document. The only thing that separates it from offences that are not on that list is the absence of the requirement about dual criminality. That has been an aspect of extradition law for hundreds of years and is a fundamental protection. We too often think only about how to get back a German, French or Austrian person who has committed a crime in this country to stand trial here. I am concerned about forcing British citizens, our constituents, to stand trial in another country for something that is not an offence in the United Kingdom. They should not have to do that, and I am horrified that a fundamental, valuable protection has been dropped. 
 The final element of democratic accountability in extradition, which is the Home Secretary's discretion about whether to extradite someone, has also been dropped. At present, he has two discretions in the process and the proceedings can be shortened by reducing it to one, which is proposed in part 2. 
 Nevertheless, the final, residual power of the Home Secretary in clause 193 is tightly circumscribed—I shall argue that it is far too tightly circumscribed when we come to that clause. Two of the fundamental protections that British law has long accorded to its citizens are being sacrificed on the altar of the European Union's desire that we should all have the same procedure. That is not necessary, especially if it means our having their procedures rather than the other way round. 
 We have already removed the prima facie case requirement for our European partners and I have misgivings about that, but it is water under the bridge. The fact that it is the only one of two requirements left reinforces my argument for dual criminality remaining a defence.

Tom Harris: I am thoroughly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's peroration. Will he clarify that his view, and presumably that of his party, is that someone from another country who commits a crime in the United Kingdom that is not a crime in their native country should not be prosecuted for that crime? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

John Maples: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was hinting by referring to my peroration, but while I am getting there, I have not quite got there yet. If we seek the extradition of, for example, a German citizen for a crime that we allege he committed here, it should be a matter for the German courts. They have procedures for that. If one of their procedures is that dual criminality is required, we should have to establish dual criminality. I have no problem with that. It is the present system. It is a fallacy to assume that if the Bill had not been introduced and if the European framework decision were not implemented, foreigners could come here, commit crimes and never be extradited back to the United Kingdom to face trial. They would have the defences that their own domestic law provides for or against extradition, but that is all that they would have and that is what they have now.
 There is an assumption that somehow the judicial proceedings of all our European partners are of equal validity. I doubt whether any Member has not had a case of a constituent languishing in jail—usually a Spanish jail—waiting to be charged on some relatively minor drugs offence such as the possession of cannabis. We have all had those cases. Frankly, the Spanish judicial system in that respect is a disgrace. There was the case of the British plane-spotters in Greece. If the Bill had been enacted and those people had returned to the United Kingdom before they were charged, they would have had to be extradited. No doubt the Greeks could have framed a charge that related to terrorism in some way. That is a scandal. We then saw the farce of those proceedings. 
 I have no problem with the judicial proceedings in France, although the House of Lords does. Rachid Ramda has been able to drag out his appeal on the basis that he cannot get a fair trial in France because he is an Arab and a Muslim. I have no problem with that. I do not have any problem with most European judicial systems, but I have a problem with Spain and 
 Greece. I also have a problem with some of the countries that might become members of the EU such as Turkey, which will automatically accede to the framework decision and become beneficiaries of this legislation. If we go down this route, let us approve these countries on a one-by-one basis. Let us ensure that if we allow our constituents to be handed over to foreign judicial authorities, those authorities have standards of procedure, fairness and independence of judges with which we are happy.

George Howarth: If someone is apprehended for a crime committed in Spain and arrested, charged and convicted, does the hon. Gentleman believe that they ought to serve the sentence?

John Maples: Yes, of course. If a British citizen who was in Spain, committed a crime and was arrested in Spain, it would be entirely a matter for Spanish law. Anyone who commits a crime in a foreign country takes the risk that he will serve some time in jail or be given some other punishment. If the hypothetical German had been arrested and tried here, exactly the same would apply. We are talking about extraditing someone from his own country to the other country.

George Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only difference between the case that he agrees with me about and that of someone coming back to the UK, is that it is all right if one gets back to the UK, but if one is arrested in Spain, one should go through the judicial process? Does he believe that if one commits a crime in Spain and manages to get the UK, the same principles do not apply?

John Maples: A British citizen in Britain is entitled to the protection of British law. A German citizen in Germany is entitled to the protection of German law. A major part of our job is to look after the freedoms and legal rights of citizens of this country, especially our constituents. I see no problem with that. If the hon. Gentleman's thesis is correct, why have we built up over two or three hundred years a body of law on extradition, which I think was codified in an Act in the late 19th century? Such protections and freedoms have been around for a long time.
 We all know that charges can be trivial or brought for political reasons. That is one of the things that concerns me about the judicial systems of some European countries. It obviously concerns the Government because they have introduced a couple of clauses that I do not think are required by the European framework directive or were mentioned in the consultation document. One relates to extraneous consideration and the other to human rights. Obviously the Government have some concern that extraneous considerations might come into the decision of a foreign judicial authority in issuing an arrest warrant; otherwise, why is the provision in the Bill? As an extraneous consideration, it is mainly to do with race and religion. 
 Which countries should we be worried about because they might prejudice a trial or keep someone a prisoner on other ostensible grounds when the real reason is connected with race or religion? Why is there a need to reintroduce Human Rights Act protections 
 when we know that all our European partners are party to the European convention on human rights? Such countries have standards to maintain and if they do not maintain them, they can be challenged. So why are we introducing a clause that allows a judge—indeed, compels him—to examine whether human rights are being protected or threatened by extradition procedures? Surely that shows that the Government are concerned about the adequacy and fairness of the judicial systems of some of our European Union partners. Will the Minister deal with that in his response? 
 I have no problem with the provisions on category 2 countries, but the wider consequences of the Bill will come back to haunt us or our successor MPs. We will find that some of our constituents have been extradited to a country in whose judicial system we have little faith. They will languish in a foreign jail, perhaps without trial or even a formal charge, because of ambiguities in the arrest warrant. The provision refers to ''the accused'', but it would be better to refer to those ''facing charges''. Many of our continental partners have investigating magistrates who are entitled to arrest people as part of their investigation, which we could deal with through amendments. It is important to establish whether people whose arrest is sought by an investigating magistrate can be extradited under these procedures. 
 We will all encounter cases where people have been extradited to other countries with no defence whatever: they can say nothing to a British court or a democratically accountable British Home Secretary to prevent their extradition. Let us consider Spain or Turkey. The Prime Minister is anxious for Turkey to become a member of the European Union, so let us say that it does so in five or six years' time. Judicial systems in those countries fall way below the standards of our own. A constituent might languish in jail without charge or trial for a long time in the most appalling conditions with no opportunity whatever, as I said, to mount an argument in a British court to help them. 
 A piece of paper produced by the foreign authorities will simply be rubber stamped by a British court, denying all grounds for a substantive appeal and any discretion on the part of the Home Secretary. The defence that the action was not a crime in the United Kingdom will not be valid. It will result in some scandalous consequences and I am amazed that Government Back Benchers—I understand why the Minister has to go along with this nonsense—are unprepared to stand up for the long-won freedoms of our constituents against the procedures that are set out in the Bill. 
 We shall come on to possible ways of improving the provisions through amendments, but if we pass the clause as it stands, part 1 will be a scandalous dereliction of Members' duties to the freedoms of our constituents.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's contribution was well worth waiting for: his outrage has been splendid. He was enraged because we had not put into the Bill the list of the 32 offences for which dual criminality can be dropped. That is indeed appalling and we should have done so! This is our second sitting, having had Second Reading before Christmas, and where is the Opposition amendment proposing to include that list? I cannot see it on the amendment paper. If the Opposition feel so strongly about this matter and are so outraged about it—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman personally; he obviously has different priorities from those of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench—why has no amendment been tabled to allow us to debate the issue?
 The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was also outraged about delays, but he knows full well that I cannot go into the detail of individual cases. To suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is holding up cases because he is not bothered to deal with them is outrageous and silly in the extreme. As he should know, the present legal arrangements allow defendants and their lawyers to make repeat representations and to give new evidence, all of which has to be examined and re-examined. As he said so clearly, it is possible for extradition arrangements under current legislation to be spun out for years. That is happening now and cases cost a fortune—on average £125,000—which is why we need reform. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath rehearsed the assertion that the Bill will be corpus juris by the back door. Mutual recognition is the alternative to corpus juris. We have to deal with the consequences of EU membership and the freedom of movement across borders that we have. Unless we are prepared to tolerate a situation in which two different sets of rules apply depending on whether someone manages to cross a border that is simple to cross, which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) exposed clearly in his two interventions, we cannot ignore the need for the reforms. We have the option of going for some form of corpus juris, in which case we would not have a generic list that has to be defined in the warrant of the issuing state but instead define exactly at a European level what is an extraditable offence. The road to corpus juris in Europe is that rather than mutual recognition, for which the Government have pushed and the principles of which are enshrined in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although it would have been better if he had done so earlier. On his point about the list being in the Bill, we made it clear on Second Reading and in moving amendments in our previous sitting that we want part 1 to apply only to terrorism. We were saying that if the Government were honest about their intentions, they would put the list in the Bill. We do not believe in it because we believe that the list is too vague, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have both said. As we do not agree with the list, it would have been inappropriate for us to
 introduce an amendment to include it in the Bill. However, it is proper for us to say that if the Government are being honest about these matters, they should include the list in the Bill.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall make three further points. As for people languishing in prisons abroad and awaiting investigation, it is clear that extradition may not take place for the purposes of investigation. It may be made only for the purposes of bringing someone to trial. Candidate countries were mentioned, and they will all have to meet the requirements of European Union conventions before they are allowed access to the mutual recognition arrangements. We have built in safeguards so that the systems in those countries can be examined against the requirements and, if necessary, the countries can be removed from the arrangements. We have tried to cover the situation that applies in countries whose jurisprudence is perhaps weaker than ours, but surely it is in everyone's interest to work to strengthen those jurisdictions and bring them up to the levels that have been enjoyed by our citizens for a long time.
 The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon repeats the allegation that we are doing away with long-standing rights that have been built up over many years, which ignores the fact that the requirements of the European convention on human rights are contained not only in the framework decision, but in the Bill. That gives clear safeguards against unfounded and unreasonable extradition requests that would be considered by a British judge before extradition is agreed to.

John Maples: I shall return to the delays in the case of Rachid Ramda, because the Minister took me to task for criticising the Home Secretary personally. I realise that the Home Secretary was not sitting with the file on his desk for two and a half years. However, in the case of Rachid Ramda, a committal hearing took place six months after he was arrested. It then took 12 months for the case to come to court. That is ridiculous in the case of someone charged with a serious terrorist offence, and I criticise the court system for that, because that is not to do with the Home Secretary. However, it then took 24 months for the case to go to appeal before the House of Lords, although the appeal was then dropped.
 Our court system took three years over the case, and in the end did not deal with it. That is scandalous, and I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor—not specifically this Lord Chancellor, as some of the process took place under the Conservative Government—should tolerate that. Someone should make it clear to the court system that that sort of delay is unacceptable. The appeal to the House of Lords was dropped in May 1999, and it is now two and a half years later. There is no possible reason or excuse for the Home Office to take two and a half years over the matter. I realise that such a case is difficult, and that it must be put together in such a way that the House of Lords cannot chuck it out. However, it is inexcusable for there to be a delay of two and a half years in the case of a friendly country, one of our two closest allies, demanding the extradition of someone for a serious terrorist offence concerning bombs on the Paris metro.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman advances a good argument for the need for reform, but he knows that I cannot go into detail on individual cases. He has no idea what representations have been made over the period to which he refers or what problems have been resolved, and I am not free to explain those to him. The issues that he raises are outrageous and unjustified. There is no deliberate delay. There is a judicial process and an extradition process that is cumbersome and wide open to the kind of abuses that the hon. Gentleman has exposed.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Part 1 warrant and certificate

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No.100, in
clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out from second 'warrant' to end of line 15 and insert 
 'which is issued by an authority of a category 1 territory and which contains— 
 (a) the statement referred to in subsection (3) and the information referred to in subsection (3A), or 
 (b) the statement referred to in subsection (4) and the information referred to in subsection (4A).'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 101 and 102. 
 Amendment No. 91, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(c) contains a summary of the facts of the offence referred to in paragraph (a) above, including the date and place of the offence, the object and value of the property if theft is alleged, or the injury suggested by the victim if personal violence is alleged.'.
 Government amendments Nos. 103 to 108.

Bob Ainsworth: I was remiss earlier in not welcoming you to the Chair, Miss Begg. I know that this is the first Standing Committee that you have chaired, and I am certain that your skills of chairmanship will equal the other skills that you have brought to the rest of your involvement in the House of Commons.
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Government amendments to the Committee. I know that some people, in the House and elsewhere, were concerned that clause 2 lacked detail about the 
 information to be contained in the warrant. That information would always be provided as part of the warrant, and the framework decision requires that. However, we thought that it would be sensible to summarise the key contents of the warrant in our domestic legislation, and the amendments have been drafted for that purpose. 
 Amendment No. 91, although tabled by the Opposition, appears to have been drafted to achieve the same aim. I will explain why I believe that amendment to be deficient. If I explain the reasoning behind the Government amendments, that should clarify why I believe that the Opposition amendment does not go as far as it should. 
 The substance of the group of amendments can be found in amendments Nos. 103 to 106, which clearly list the information that a warrant must contain to be accepted as the basis of a person's arrest. Amendment No. 103 deals with cases where a person is wanted for prosecution and amendment No. 106 applies when a person has been convicted, but is yet to be sentenced, or when a sentence has been imposed, but not yet served. It will not have escaped the Opposition's notice that amendment No. 91 does not deal with the latter scenario, addressing only accusation cases. 
 The Committee will agree that amendment No. 103 examines these cases in a more comprehensive and rational manner than the alternative. It is designed to seek the details of any other warrant that may have been issued in the requesting country for the extradition offence: amendment No. 91 does not. The amendment would also secure details of the potential sentence that could be imposed in the event of a conviction: again, the alternative amendment does not. 
 In the case of a convicted person whose extradition is sought so that he can be sentenced or serve a sentence, amendment No. 106 is clear in its effect. It requires not only details of identity, the conviction and other warrants, but information about the sentence that has been or could be imposed. 
 I am confident that these Government amendments go a long way towards meeting the concerns that have been expressed. The information would be a required part of the warrant, as set out in the Bill, making it clear to everyone exactly which person is sought, for what reason and what is likely to happen in the event of a conviction or sentence. These measures will ensure that the British courts can make the appropriate assessment of the relevant details without having to second-guess or prejudice the proper role of the judiciary in the requesting country. I commend amendments Nos. 100 to 108, and I invite the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw amendment No. 91.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. As the Minister said, when we tabled amendment No. 91, to which the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) added their names, we did so because, as the Bill stood on Second Reading, none of the required detail was
 evident. The Government have responded to our and others' criticisms on Second Reading, endorsed by organisations such as the Law Society of England and Wales, that the detail needed to be included in the Bill. We are pleased that the Government have responded, and the Minister is right to point out that the Government amendments go further in some respects than amendment No. 91, which I will not press to the vote.
 Can the Minister confirm that in cases of personal violence, the ''circumstances''—the term used in the Government amendments—would include the injuries suggested by the victim? In allegations of theft, would the date and place of the offence and the value of the property also be set out? If so, it would satisfy the Law Society of England and Wales, because it was those omissions from the original drafting that led to the precise wording of amendment No. 91. The wording in the Government amendments is wider, but less specific. If the Minister will tell us that his more general phraseology of the particulars of the circumstances and alleged conduct would definitely include all the points in our amendment No. 91, under the rule of Pepper v. Hart, a court will be able to examine the Minister's wording when it deals with such a case, which would satisfy everyone. If he does so, we will be prepared to withdraw the amendment and let the Government's wording stand in its place.

Bob Ainsworth: Of course, we would have to include details of the offence, specifying whether it was a violent offence or a theft, for example, as well as the circumstances in which the offence was committed, but it would not necessarily have to contain details of exactly what injuries had been suffered or a full list of every detail of the loss incurred. It is for the court to take those matters into account during the trial and, if the person is found guilty, during sentencing. An extraordinary amount of detail may not necessary for the purposes of extradition. However, the details of the offence—the what, when and where—would have to be provided. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
 Amendment agreed to.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in
clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out 'an authority of a category 1 territory' and insert 'a judge of a High Court of a category 1 territory in which the presumption of innocence as applied in the courts of England and Wales applies.'

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 127, in
clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out 'an' and insert 'a judicial'.
 No. 10, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
 No. 11, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (6).
 No. 131, in 
clause 5, line 8, leave out 'an' and insert 'a judicial'.
 No. 149, in 
clause 63, page 30, line 12, after 'appropriate', insert 'judicial'.
 No. 84, in 
clause 65, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 '(2) The only authority to be recognised in a British court for the purposes of this Act from a category 1 territory is to be a judge of a High Court (equivalent to the High Court of England and Wales) in which the presumption of innocence applies in the same way as it applies in the courts of England and Wales.'

Nick Hawkins: This is a substantive group of amendments, some of which were tabled by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Torridge and West Devon, who will doubtless speak to them. It is fair to say that many concerns have been expressed by the Opposition and outside organisations, but especially by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its excellent report about this part of the Bill.
 Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete subsection (5). We want to ensure that there is a judicial safeguard for British citizens who may face extradition, not only the opinion of a designated authority. The Bill is silent about what a designated authority will be. The explanatory notes state that it is intended to be the National Criminal Intelligence Service and, in Scotland, the Crown Office. If that is what the Government intend, why is that stated only in the explanatory notes and not in the Bill? It would be helpful if the Minister were to say that he is prepared to include that in the Bill. 
 The main criticism of clause 2, to which the amendments refer, is set out in paragraph 58 and subsequent paragraphs of the Select Committee's report. It is a serious allegation, which is bald and strongly worded. Paragraph 58 states: 
''Clause 2(5) appears to be incompatible with undertakings given to the European Scrutiny Committee by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Mr. Bob Ainsworth MP, in January 2002. In the course of examining the draft framework decision, the Committee raised concerns about what authority would be competent, under the framework decision, to issue and execute the European Arrest Warrant . . . At the time at which the European Scrutiny Committee first considered the draft framework decision, the draft provided for the European Arrest Warrant to be issued and executed by a 'judicial authority'. The Committee was concerned that, without an agreed definition of 'judicial authority', it was not possible to ensure that orders made by police forces, with no recognisably judicial involvement in the making or approval of such orders, would be excluded from recognition and enforcement under the framework decision. Article 1 of the draft framework decision was subsequently amended to refer to the European Arrest Warrant as being a 'court decision issued by a member state'. The Committee inferred from this reference that the 'judicial authority' would have to exercise recognisably judicial functions in an independent manner.''
 We tabled these important amendments to reflect precisely the concern that the European Scrutiny Committee and now the Home Affairs Committee have raised. The report continues: 
''The European Scrutiny Committee asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary if it followed from article 1 that the UK courts would not be obliged to recognise and enforce a warrant if it came from a body which they did not recognise as a court.''
 We think that that is vital. It is part of the protection about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has spoken powerfully. 
 The report goes on to say that the Under-Secretary 
''responded that 'it will not be possible for authorities that clearly are not courts, that are not judicial authorities to issue requests for European Arrest Warrants as they will not be recognised', although he pointed out that it will be for each member state to designate a judicial authority competent to issue such warrants. He later confirmed that, under the Extradition Bill, the UK judicial authority 'will not only have the ability but will certainly not 
execute a European Arrest Warrant that comes from anything other than a judicial authority in another European state . . . the whole thing will need to be spelt out within the Bill' . . . He gave similar assurances to European Standing Committee B.''
 In that case, those assurances were given to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Henley (Mr. Johnson), because we attended that Committee. 
 The report continues: 
''Article 1 of the framework decision was subject to further amendment, subsequent to the European Scrutiny Committee report. Article 1.1 as finally adopted refers to the European Arrest Warrant as being a 'judicial decision issued by a member state', rather than a 'court decision'. Article 6.1 provides that the issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing member state which is competent to issue a European Arrest Warrant by virtue of the law of that state.''
 That having changed, the Home Affairs Committee says in paragraph 62: 
''We consider that the effect of Clause 2(5) of the Bill is that, contrary to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's assurances, the UK judicial authority will not have the ability to refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant on the grounds that it does not come from a judicial authority in another member state.''
 The Select Committee rightly drew that conclusion, because 
''Clause 2(5) requires only that the issuing authority be an authority that has 'the function of issuing arrest warrants' in the category 1 territory. We consider that this definition could well include warrants issued by police forces, with no recognisably judicial involvement in the making or approval of such orders—the very authorities that the European Scrutiny Committee was concerned should not be able to issue a European Arrest Warrant. On the face of it, this appears completely to contradict the undertakings given in Parliament by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.''
 The Home Affairs Committee concludes in paragraph 63: 
''We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the European Arrest Warrant should be able to be issued only by a judicial authority exercising recognisably judicial functions in an independent manner.''
 That reinforces the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon have made about the sort of countries that are likely to become members of the European Union and some existing members. My hon. Friend referred to his experience of dealing with constituents languishing in Spanish courts. There are also those who languish in Italian prisons without ever being brought before a court, a matter that the Select Committee and some organisations have raised. Italy is an EU partner country, for which many of us have a high regard in other respects, but those who know about the Italian system cannot have confidence that it will protect people who face charges before its courts, given our experience of trying to protect British citizens who languish in Italian prisons and our knowledge of what happens to Italian citizens before their own courts. That is why the Home Affairs Committee went on to say: 
''We consider that this requirement should apply to all Part 1 warrants. We therefore recommend that Clause 2(5) be amended to provide that the UK judicial authority may not issue a Clause 2 certificate unless it believes that the Part 1 warrant was issued by such a judicial authority.''
 The amendment would ensure that the judicial authority that issues the warrants is a high court judge and that British citizens have the protection of 
 knowing that the warrants had received detailed judicial scrutiny by the equivalent of a English High Court judge, that is in a superior court of a territory in which the presumption of innocence as applied in the courts of England and Wales applies. Organisations on the right and left in politics—all those concerned about civil liberties—have written to me and to other members of the Committee because they are worried that in other jurisdictions that may be covered by the proposal there would be no presumption of innocence. 
 We want the Bill to include reference to a judicial authority. Amendment No. 127, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which I believe was drafted by Justice, would have a similar effect, as it would restore the words ''a judicial authority''. We go further because we want to ensure that there is protection for British citizens. The amendment reinforces the points made so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. 
 It is extraordinary that the Minister is presenting a Bill that completely undermines his assurances to previous Committees. The Minister smiles but I do not regard it as a laughing matter; it is extremely serious. The Minister should take more notice of the strongly expressed views of the distinguished Home Affairs Committee, which is dominated by members of his party and chaired by a distinguished Labour Chairman, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The Government, who usually take notice of the hon. Gentleman's views, seem completely to have ignored them on this occasion. The Minister may want to dismiss the matter with a smile and laugh now, but when the Bill as drafted goes to another place he will face the strictures of lawyers who are more highly qualified than I am and of parliamentarians who are far more senior than both of us. I strongly suspect that the Minister will not get the measure through Parliament unless the protections set out in the amendment are included at a later stage.

Alistair Carmichael: I add my voice to those who have welcomed you to the Chair, Miss Begg. You are a welcome addition to the Chairmen's Panel. I have already had the privilege of serving under your chairmanship of the Scottish Grand Committee, and I am confident that our proceedings in this Committee will be exceedingly well chaired.
 I preface my remarks by reminding hon. Members that reference to the British legal system irritates me when I am feeling less patient than I am today. I agreed with much that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, but there is more than one legal system in this country. I merely observe in passing that there are certain safeguards in Scotland: for example, the Scottish legal system insists that a person who is remanded in custody on a petition proceeding must be brought for trial within 110 days and on a summary complaint within 40 days. Thereafter the Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt using corroborated evidence. Such safeguards are not given to all citizens in the United Kingdom, which I have 
 always found difficult to explain. The lesson from that is that when we speak of our legal system, we should do so with a fair measure of humility. 
 As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has already said, amendment No. 127 is designed to achieve largely the same aims as the Conservative amendments. However, I will raise some questions about the Conservative amendments, and I suggest for reasons of simplicity and succinctness that the Liberal Democrat amendments, and the speeches proposing them, might be preferred. 
 The insertion of the words ''a judicial'' would give the proper amount of judicial scrutiny, which is an important protection, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said earlier. Although the issuing of warrants is a judicial prerogative in the UK legal systems, the function is not solely performed by judges in other European countries. Investigating magistrates in countries that use the Napoleonic code often have the warrant powers that we reserve to the judiciary. However, especially considering the provisions in subsection (3)(a), some judicial scrutiny is important to ensure that all procedures have been observed and properly executed up to the point at which the warrant is issued. 
 My difficulty with the Conservative amendment No. 2 may just be a typographical point but I do not understand why ''High Court'' should be capitalised. I can understand why the High Court is capitalised, but I think that better terminology might have been ''a high court'' or ''a superior court''. The amendment would insert the words: 
''a judge of a High Court of a category 1 territory in which the presumption of innocence as applied in the courts of England and Wales applies.''
 Another difficulty is that that would require a Scottish court to determine how the presumption of innocence is applied in England and Wales. One would expect that it would be largely the same, but in Scotland the presumption of innocence is rebuttable only on the production of corroborated evidence, which is not the case in England and Wales. There is clearly a difference in which the presumption of innocence is applied in the different parts of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that the words 
''in the courts of England and Wales''
 are particularly helpful or should be included in the Bill. 
 That said, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments both seek to achieve the same important aim. The function of the judiciary as the safeguard for individual liberty is important, as has been mentioned at length by others. It is perhaps something of a de minimis safeguard, but one that we should not abandon lightly.

Bob Ainsworth: I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments. The Committee knows that part 1 gives effect to the framework decision of the European arrest warrant. All hon. Members will have studied that document, Let us try to ensure that we examine the issue by reading those two documents together. The Committee will find that there is no huge issue of principle between us, but perhaps there will be.
 It may emerge during the course of debate. I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath at least to accept that we have no intention of conning Committees at this or any other stage.
 Article 1 of the framework decision states: 
''The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State''.
 More pertinently, article 6 states: 
''The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.''
 That could not be clearer. There is no suggestion, nor even the possibility, that a police officer can issue a European arrest warrant without being in breach of the framework decision. That ties in with the legislation quite clearly, because clause 2(5) states that 
''the authority which issued the warrant has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory.''
 The function takes us straight back to those authorities that have that function as laid out in the framework document being judicial authorities under the law of the issuing state. There is no attempt to renege on any commitments that were given in previous Committees. The framework document could not be clearer. We sought safeguards during the negotiation of the document to ensure that we protected rights in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests we should.

John Maples: A British court dealing with an application for the extradition of someone under part 1 would read the Bill, not the framework document. If the Government took the trouble to get ''judicial'' inserted into the framework document, why cannot they simply put it in the Bill? Subsection (5) is ambiguous. It says that the authority
''has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory''.
 A police officer may well be one of the people or organisations that have a function of issuing arrest warrants in another territory. If the arrest warrant is to be acted on under this legislation, it should be issued by a judicial authority. The question of the presumption of innocence is different, but the insertion of ''judicial'' in these two places could solve the problem. I am not sure why the Minister resists it.

Bob Ainsworth: Let us discuss how we deal with extradition warrants currently and how we expect them to be dealt with under the European arrest warrant framework. If hon. Members are still not satisfied at the end of the debate they can make their views known. We expect that European arrest warrants will be issued in future by exactly the same authorities as issue warrants under the current arrest procedures. We intend to do that in the United Kingdom. There is no reason to suppose that our intentions are different from those of any other European country. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to include all those authorities that currently issue arrest warrants, as issuing authorities. I have yet to hear an argument that says that we should change that.
 The Committee is well aware that we have enjoyed extradition arrangements with all EU member states 
 for many years. Extradition requests come from a variety of sources. Any Member who read the proceedings of European Standing Committee B would be aware of the wide variety of sources for current extradition requests—the examining magistrate in Liege, the magistrate at the public prosecutor's office in Amsterdam, the Court of Brescia, the county tribunal of Bobigny or even the magistrate judge Maria Teresa Palacios Criado in Madrid. That gives an idea of the span of arrangements used by our European partners and the sort of people who make arrest warrants today. We do not believe that that will or can change: the framework document insists on no widening outwith the judicial authorities in the part 1 countries. 
 We receive extradition requests from a variety of sources throughout the UK and we should recognise that other EU countries do not have exactly the same structure of criminal justice system as our own. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly pointed out, our system is structured in two different ways. The current system works well and has not given rise to any problems in the recent past stemming from an inappropriate request from a European partner for extradition. I see no reason to change the system. 
 By the time that countries start to operate the European arrest warrant, we will know which authorities will be competent to issue them. It will be reasonably straightforward for the issuing authority to be identified and it will be possible to cross-check them with the central record kept by the general secretariat. 
 Some of the Conservative amendments suggest that we should accept warrants only from a high court or its equivalent, which would be problematic. How would the UK authorities and judges decide which issuing authorities constitute a high court? Why should we stipulate that only a higher level of authority should be permitted to make extradition requests to the UK when we have been working with colleagues in other countries without problems for many years? 
 The presumption of innocence is another problem. Article 6 of the ECHR deals with the right to a fair trial. It makes it clear that a person shall be 
''presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law''.
 All EU member states have signed up to and implemented the ECHR, so it is difficult to understand why Opposition Members have such a problem here. 
 As to convictions in absentia, the Bill makes it clear that extradition will take place only if the fugitive has a guarantee of a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial. A retrial for a person convicted in absentia begins with the presumption of that person's innocence, as guaranteed under ECHR provisions. If Opposition Members are suggesting that we should second-guess the approach of a foreign court, the Committee should view that as unrealistic. If the UK ever extradited only to countries where the courts operated an identical system—the amendments refer to the High Court or an equivalent—I cannot begin to imagine the damage that that would do to our international reputation. I do not believe that the 
 Committee would like the UK to be seen as a country that refuses to co-operate on serious criminal matters unless other states accede to our—quite unrealistic—demands that their legal systems should mirror our own. 
 If the Bill is read in conjunction with the framework document, the only people who are allowed to issue a European arrest warrant are those who have that function under the framework document. That document spells out that such people must be judicial authorities. I accept that the fears raised by Opposition Members are real, but I hope that if they are prepared to read the two documents together, they will be satisfied that the sort of abuses that they believe may arise cannot do so. 
Mr. Maples rose—
Mr. Hawkins rose—

Anne Begg: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell hon. Members that I will not be calling a stand part debate on clause 2. We must make progress, and there is an amendment to almost every line of the clause.

John Maples: I want to pursue the question of judicial authority with the Minister. He is right that the framework document states that this is a judicial decision. Article 6 states:
''The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State.''
 That is as it should be. However, subsection (5) does not state that the authority should be a judicial one, and does not refer to the framework document. It states that the authority 
''has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 country.''
 As the Minister said, there are several ways of issuing arrest warrants. It is possible that there are some people who can issue arrest warrants in a category 1 territory who would not qualify under the framework document, and others, such as judicial authorities, who would. I do not understand, therefore, why the Minister resists the insertion of ''judicial'' in the appropriate places, or why he does not include a cross-reference back to the framework document stating that the authority for the function of issuing arrest warrants is given under the framework document. That might be a cumbersome way of covering it, but it would probably do so. 
 I stress to the Minister the importance of inserting ''judicial'' in the appropriate places. That would ensure that the protection that he claims that the Government built into the framework document by insisting on the use of the ''judicial'' in three or four places is reflected in the legislation. It is the legislation under which people will be extradited, and not the framework decision itself. It seems to me that it is an easy concession for the Minister to make. I cannot see that it would create problems for the Government, and it would set the minds of several of us at rest.

Nick Hawkins: I echo what my hon. Friend has said, but would like to go a little further. It is extraordinary
 that we, as parliamentarians, are listening to a Minister saying that there will never be a problem, and that we do not need to refer in the Bill to the framework document, but merely have to read the two documents in conjunction.
 As I said in relation to the wider issues covered by the Bill during the debate on clause 1, the Minister's attitude is that this historic House of Parliament is now just a rubber stamp. We have to accept what Ministers of his or any other Government negotiate in Europe, and so there is no point in having a Parliament. 
 We are concerned, as Members of Parliament, to protect British citizens with British law. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we must bear in mind that there are two systems of law in the UK. However, whether a constituent is from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, our job as Members is to ensure that the legislation is right, and that only legislation that is proper should govern British citizens. The Opposition feel strongly that our job as Members is to ensure that UK legislation is right. That is the purpose of the Committee system, and that is why we scrutinise the detail of the legislation line by line, word by word and clause by clause. 
 It is not acceptable for the Minister to say that we must read the Bill in conjunction with the European framework document, nor is it acceptable for him to say that there have never been any problems with an extradition request or with the sort of person issuing it. Does the Minister not remember the acres of newsprint generated by the Pinochet case? One of the issues that the Law Lords had to consider, not once but several times, was the status of the Spanish magistrate—I think he was called Garzon. That magistrate was seeking to extradite someone, who was resident temporarily in this country to receive medical treatment, back to another country for offences committed in a third country that was nothing to do with the EU. 
 I feel passionately about that because my constituency in Surrey had to face the outrageous police costs that the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, said on television would not fall on my constituents. Surrey police had to spend £1.2 million on the extra security for Pinochet while he was under house arrest, but the Government reimbursed them only to the tune of £600,000, so the cost of the Pinochet shambles fell on my constituents. For the Minister to say that there have never been issues in recent times about the issuing of extradition warrants or the status of the person seeking to issue them is an attempt to rewrite history in the most extraordinary way.

Bob Ainsworth: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Spanish magistrate is not a judicial authority?

Nick Hawkins: I am saying that the Minister was wrong to suggest that there have not been recent problems about the status of a person issuing extradition warrants. In fact, that issue has consumed hours of judicial, political and television time and acres of newsprint. The Minister cannot
 rewrite history. The Opposition have said that, precisely because of the problems that have arisen. We want to protect our citizens by ensuring that a superior court is involved and that the presumption of innocence applies. We want our citizens to be protected by our historic traditions, such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. That is why we feel so passionately.
 It is simply not acceptable for the Minister to brush all that away and say, ''Well, it doesn't matter that that is not in our legislation. You have to look at the European directive.'' He blithely says that if the issuing or requesting country does not use a judicial authority, it will be in breach of the framework decision. Is he really saying that other countries never breach framework decisions and always act in line with every dot and comma of every European decision? 
 Our constituents complain to us all the time that we are forced to comply with every dot and comma of European legislation, whereas people in other countries are not. Many of our constituents are concerned that we gold plate European legislation, whereas other countries blithely ignore it where it does not suit their citizens. I want to ensure that British citizens are protected by what is in the Bill—our legislation. That is our job in Parliament.

Bob Ainsworth: If the issuing authority were not a judicial authority as designated in the framework document, the National Criminal Intelligence Service would not accept the warrant—it would not be dealt with. The position is as simple as that.

Nick Hawkins: Where does it say that in the Bill?

John Maples: We must be clear on what sort of European document we are debating. It is not European legislation, but a framework decision that is being translated into British law through the Bill. It is therefore the Bill that applies. An authority could issue a warrant that was in breach of the framework decision but that complied with clause 2. That is what concerns us.
 If the framework decision were a piece of European legislation that was automatically incorporated into British law, I could see the Minister's point, but it is not. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the framework decision has no validity as a piece of UK legislation. The Bill will have that validity when it becomes an Act, so it would be possible for an arrest warrant to be issued in breach of the framework decision but in compliance with the Bill. Inserting ''judicial'' in a couple of places would solve the problem, and I cannot see the difficulty with doing that.

Nick Hawkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: he reinforces my point. We must ensure that the Government take these concerns seriously. If it were only Conservative Members expressing concerns, that would be one thing, and the Minister might be able to wave them away, but as I said, Liberty, Justice and the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee make the same points. That Committee, in very strong wording, says that the Minister has not acceded in the wording of the Bill—the legislation that he proposes
 should govern our citizens—with what he promised previous Committees.
 It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say that the Bill must be read with the framework decision, as my hon. Friend said. We feel extremely strongly about that, so I shall press the amendment to a vote.

Alistair Carmichael: I should say at this stage that I intend to press amendment No. 127 to a vote.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No.127, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out 'an' and insert 'a judicial'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment made: No.101, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, after second 'the' insert 'Part 1'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No.3, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out 'is accused' and insert 'faces charges'.
 I shall be brief, but my brevity is not intended to suggest that we are not serious about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to the issue earlier and said that he hoped we would deal with it by amendment, which is what we are doing. We want the Bill to state clearly that the person accused, who may face extradition from this country to another, has been subject to the formal process of facing charges rather than merely being accused. Again, organisations such as Justice, Liberty and the Law Society feel strongly about the issue. I reinforce what my hon. Friend said, that it is essential that the Bill includes reference to someone actually facing formal charges rather than merely being accused. That is necessary for the protection of British citizens, for the reasons we have set out. I do not need to say more.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, can be brief. I have every sympathy with the point that is made by means of the amendment, but I have difficulty with its wording. I suspect that the difference is that when the police charge someone in England and Wales, that is the start of criminal proceedings. In Scotland, caution and charge is a procedural formality. Proceedings are taken only at the instance of the procurator fiscal when he or she decides to put matters to court. While there is great deal of force to the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, it would have been preferable had he framed his amendment in terms of facing charges in court or court proceedings. I have sympathy with his aims, but not the means.

John Maples: The framework document is clear about this. Article 1 states:
''for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution''.
 However, the Bill talks of someone being accused of something, which is a much looser term. I cannot understand why the Minister resisted the insertion of ''judicial''. The Government do not get everything right. It may be surprising, but Governments make mistakes. Some of our amendments would wreck the proposed legislation and I can understand him resisting those. However, I cannot understand why the Government resist a technical amendment that would improve the Bill. I have the feeling that that will be the Minister's problem with the House of Lords. Will he return to the House of Commons in this issue? 
 I do not know whether my hon. Friend's wording achieves his objective, but our objective is to ensure that the procedure can be used only where someone will be prosecuted and charged with an offence, whatever the correct term would be. Being accused is much vaguer than being charged. I would be happy to use the words in the framework document, which are 
''for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution''.
 Presumably both that phrase and the judicial authority point, which are both in article 1 of the framework decision, were pored over by Government lawyers, and presumably the Government claim some credit for having got those things in to tighten things up. Why then loosen them up in our legislation? I cannot understand why we insist on what is essentially a treaty commitment being fairly precise, yet have a vague piece of legislation that is capable of wider interpretation. The Government should consider the amendment seriously. If the Minister does not think that the wording works, I would be happy for him to return with something on Report or in the House of Lords that achieves the objective. If every genuine attempt to improve the Bill is to be rejected because the Government did not think of it, we will end up with a bad Bill and a raft of House of Lords amendments that the Minister will have to deal with later.

Bob Ainsworth: Having failed to convince Opposition Members that what was in the Bill effectively meant judicial authority, I will have to try a little harder now. I do not think that there are any substantial differences between us on this issue. We are both clear that in an accusation case, which is a case where a person has yet to be convicted, extradition
 should be possible only for the purpose of putting the person on trial. It should not be possible for the purpose of interrogation or evidence gathering. Clause 2(3) is drafted to achieve that result. It does not talk about a person being ''suspected'' of an offence or of having evidence to give about the offence. It is quite clear that the person must be accused of the offence.
 I am advised that the wording proposed by the hon. Gentleman would make no material difference.

Nick Hawkins: Well, accept it.

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for just a minute. If hon. Gentlemen feel strongly that that is a better form of words, I should be happy to consider whether any differences would arise from it. I have been assured that it would make no difference, but it would necessitate an awful lot of amendments. The phrase occurs repeatedly. We have to take into account the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The words in this amendment may not be suitable for the Scottish jurisdiction, although they may well be suitable for the English and Welsh jurisdictions. I shall consider whether there is any material between the phrases ''accused'' and ''faces charges''. I have been assured that there is no difference, but I shall be happy to examine the point again.

John Maples: I am grateful to the Minister for taking that approach, and I am happy for him to re-examine the point. Oppositions often table amendments that have technical defects but try to achieve a purpose, and I should be grateful if he would look a little wider and consider using the words that are in the framework decision
''for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution''.
 I would be perfectly happy if that terminology were incorporated. It is clear what we are concerned about, and I want the Minister to consult his advisers on both the amendment and the words in the framework decision.

Bob Ainsworth: I hope that I am making that clear. I am not sure that the amendment contains the appropriate words, but I do not think that there is any difference in principle—as was true in the last case, despite the bluster—or that there is any intention for us to allow arrest warrants to be issued by anyone other than judicial authorities. On whether we have the right words or there is a better phrase, I assure Opposition Members that I will take into account the points that they have made, including those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and the wording of the framework document when considering whether we could improve on the current wording. With that assurance, I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is being splendidly reasonable on this amendment. I do not hang my hat on a particular form of words, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, by tabling an amendment we are alerting the Government to the extent of our concerns. I accept entirely the comment of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there may be better wording that is more appropriate for the law north of the border.
 The Minister's undertaking to re-examine the matter and incorporate something along the lines of our proposals, the framework decision wording or, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, an expansion of our wording to include what is appropriate to Scots law is entirely reasonable and sensible. However, other bodies share our concerns, and I hope that the Minister and his officials will bear in mind the fact that if he is unable to come up with something satisfactory, he is likely to face similar arguments in the other place. I hope that, treating the matter seriously as he has done on this amendment, he will return with an improvement that includes the protection that we feel is vital in the legislation. 
 In light of the Minister's approach, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 102, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 20, after first 'the' insert 'Part 1'.
 No. 103, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The information is— 
 (a) particulars of the person's identity; 
 (b) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence; 
 (c) particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; 
 (d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence if the person is convicted of it.'.
 No. 104, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, after second 'the' insert 'Part 1'.
 No. 105, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, after first 'the' insert 'Part 1'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out 'or another form of detention'.
 Amendment No. 8 also concerns a matter that we feel is serious and important. It would reintroduce what was contemplated in the framework decision, which is that offences for which someone may be extradited should be serious enough normally to attract a sentence of three years' imprisonment rather than the 12 months that is detailed in the Bill. We are not the only ones saying that—many organisations agree, including Justice and Liberty. The Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee also agree, as do some of the Government's Back Benchers who spoke on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) spoke at length and made the point that because we are talking about a new regime with much more draconian measures, it is not good enough for the Minister to defend the figure of 12 months, as he did at Second Reading and during Tuesday's debate on clause 1, by saying simply that it was the figure under the previous legislation. That is not an effective argument, and I hope that the Minister will not bother us with it this morning. 
 I will quote again the Select Committee report. Paragraph 48 says: 
''Both JUSTICE and Liberty expressed serious concerns about this proposal. JUSTICE supported the three-year maximum penalty being retained, on the grounds that 'this would go some way to avoid the abusive use of the coercive measure of extradition for minor offences that do not constitute crimes in this country.' ''
 We have already discussed the vagueness of some of the 32 offences set out in the framework decision. The report continues: 
''Liberty pointed out that, in the 13 years since the Extradition Act 1989''—
 itself a consolidation measure of legislation dating from late Victorian times— 
''was enacted, UK courts have intervened to refuse extradition in a significant number of EU cases, and the Home Secretary has refused to extradite in a significant number of other cases where extradition would have been plainly wrong or unjust.''
 Paragraph 49 continues: 
''We asked the Home Office why they proposed to reduce the dual criminality protection threshold. In response, they told us that they believed that applying a 12 month threshold is appropriate because the threshold is still sufficiently high to ensure that the conduct in question must be regarded as a matter of some seriousness in the criminal justice system of the country making the request.''
 However, ''some seriousness'' is inappropriate for something serious enough to warrant the extradition of a British citizen. The Home Office stated that 
''a three-year threshold has never previously featured in extradition law''.
 The Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee retorted: 
''We consider that the Home Office's response fails to deal with the obvious point that, although a 12-month threshold may ensure that the offence is a matter of 'some seriousness', the framework decision clearly envisages that only offences serious enough to warrant a three year maximum penalty should be exempt from the dual criminality requirement.''

Bob Ainsworth: I seek clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to amendment No. 8, which would leave out
''or another form of detention''?

Nick Hawkins: Yes, I am. We believe that the amendment is necessary because the wording added to the provision is not good enough. It should refer not only to three years imprisonment, but to imprisonment as such and not to ''another form of detention''. The change from three years to 12 months and the reference not only to imprisonment but to ''another form of detention'' are part of the same slippery slope.

Alistair Carmichael: In some jurisdictions, a distinction is made between imprisonment and detention. In my experience, detention means custodial detention for people under 21 and imprisonment is appropriate only for those over 21. Another distinction is that detention usually takes place in a young offenders institution. Does the hon. Gentleman want to remove such distinctions from the scope of the Bill?

Nick Hawkins: I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should extradite juveniles to other countries. As the Home Affairs Committee said, extradition should be reserved for the
 most serious offences. Extending the scope further by changing three years to 12 months and including ''another form of detention'' cannot be justified.

Alistair Carmichael: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a 16-year-old alleged to have committed murder should not be made the subject of extradition?

Nick Hawkins: No, I am suggesting that we should reflect carefully on the Government's policy of taking us down a slippery slope whereby less serious offences can lead to extradition. We are sent to Parliament to protect British citizens, who might be sent abroad for not particularly serious offences that do not attract serious custodial sentences. The Minister may return later with alternative wording to deal with the problem. For now, I want the Committee to be aware of the slippery slope. In earlier responses, we heard the Minister say that he would re-examine the framework decision. In this instance, however, the Government are not adopting the words of the framework decision, but moving away from them. I stress our concern that we should return to the protection on which British citizens historically have been able to rely.

Anne Begg: Before I call other hon. Members, I remind the Committee that we are debating
''or another form of detention.''
 The length of that detention is set out in clause 63, and there will be an opportunity to discuss that at a later date.

Bob Ainsworth: I am grateful for that clarification, Miss Begg, as I was confused when the hon. Gentleman started to talk about other, admittedly important, issues such as whether we should implement the framework decision minimally or whether we are prepared to go further. Those issues have nothing to do with the amendment.
 The approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman would create pitfalls, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly exposed. UK courts send young people to young offenders institutions, not to prison. Equally, in appropriate cases, people may be detained in mental institutions rather than imprisoned. One size does not fit all in the UK, and there is no reason why the situation should be any different in any other country. I do not know the different titles that different European countries give to their detention facilities, and we cannot be over-prescriptive. Bearing that in mind, if we were to remove the words 
''or another form of detention'',
 we would create a loophole for a criminal to exploit, and we would make it impossible to extradite a person detained in an institution called something other than prison. 
 The amendment is not appropriate. It would create a loophole for serious offenders in some circumstances, and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.

Nick Hawkins: I do not accept the Minister's argument. However, I have alerted him to the strength of our feelings about the matter, and I
 understand that our suggested deletion may not cover the point. Again, I suspect that the other place may consider the issue again, and that the final wording may be different to that used by the Minister. However, I have probed the matter and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 106, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(4A) The information is— 
 (a) particulars of the person's identity; 
 (b) particulars of the conviction; 
 (c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence; 
 (d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has not been sentenced for the offence; 
 (e) particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has been sentenced for the offence.'
 No. 107, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 10, after second 'the' insert 'Part 1'.
 No. 108, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert 'Part 1'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (8).
 I draw hon. Members' attention to a point I made earlier that the Opposition and some organisations believe that the Bill should specify which bodies will deal with extradition. It is not acceptable to specify them only in the explanatory notes. The Government say that they intend the bodies to be NCIS in the UK and the Crown Office in Scotland. If British citizens are to be affected by the legislation, they should be able to see plainly from the Bill which bodies will deal with extradition. They should not have to face the open-ended power of a Government who can, at a later stage, designate more than one authority or different authorities for different parts of the UK by Order in Council. Legislation should be clear. If the Government can specify in their explanatory notes which organisations will be used, why can that not be included in the Bill? We feel very strongly about this issue, but I will not take up any more of the Committee's time in stating our beliefs even more baldly.

Alistair Carmichael: On this occasion, I approve not only of the end but of the means.

Bob Ainsworth: It is our intention that NCIS should be the UK's main designated authority, with the Crown Office performing the role in Scotland. It makes good sense for NCIS to perform that role as it will be the home of the UK's Schengen bureau, and we expect most requests to be transmitted by the secure Schengen system. Similarly, it is entirely appropriate for the Crown Office to perform the role in Scotland, providing administrative assistance to the judiciary north of the border. Designating an additional authority for Scotland will allow swifter transmission of the relevant warrant when it is known, for example, that the individual being sought is actually in Scotland.
 I fail to see the harm in designating an additional authority. As to whether that should be in the Bill, I ask hon. Gentlemen to think back and remember that not so long ago NCIS did not exist. It has an administrative function, and if someone were at some point to change the arrangements north or south of the border or retitle NCIS, primary legislation would be needed if the authorities had been designated in the Bill. There is no need for that, because our intentions are clear, sensible and known to everyone. However, there may be a structural change in the future as there has been in the recent past—not that any is planned—and I ask Opposition Members to accept that it would be nonsense to have to rewrite primary legislation in order to cope with such a situation.

Nick Hawkins: I do not accept what the Minister says. It is entirely appropriate that British people should be able to see in the Bill which bodies they are. Vague phrases such as ''designated authorities'' are simply not good enough. It is essential that they should be stated in the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: I suggest that the envisaged defect could be rectified by including the words ''or their successor bodies'', or something equally appropriate.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that something like that will be included in the measure because the Government will have to concede the point in the other place or at a later stage.

Bob Ainsworth: I am happy to consider whether there is a form of words that covers such an eventuality as I have described. I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that I will consider whether such a proposal would be sensible. I oppose the amendment as drafted because I want to avoid the need to return to Parliament if such a change should
 take place. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would see that as common sense.

Nick Hawkins: In response to the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and to my strong views, the Minister is now wondering whether to reconsider the matter and perhaps bring forward Government amendments. I was about to press the amendment to a Division, but as the Minister is starting to change his position I shall not do so. If the Minister does not table a proposal that puts a reference to NCIS and the Crown Office or their successor bodies in the Bill, we shall return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past eleven o'clock till this day at half-past two o'clock.